Rhinehart v. State
| Decision Date | 03 April 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. F-78-434,F-78-434 |
| Citation | 609 P.2d 781 |
| Parties | Charles RHINEHART, and Julia Rhinehart, Appellants, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Appellants, Charles Rhinehart and Julia Rhinehart, were charged jointly with the offense of Larceny of Domestic Animals pursuant to 21 O.S.1971, § 1716, in the District Court, Coal County, Case No. CRF-77-4. At the jury trial, both appellants were found guilty of the offense charged. Appellant Charles Rhinehart was sentenced to serve a term of ten (10) years' imprisonment and appellant Julia Rhinehart received a sentence of three (3) years' imprisonment.
At trial, Bob Cody testified he discovered eight cows and one calf missing from his land on November 8, 1976. He stated that the missing cattle were branded with a diamond and an "H" on the left hip and thigh. Mr. Cody identified from photographs four of the missing animals which were found at the Ada stockyards.
Sheriff F. R. Heck testified that three cows and one calf, all bearing diamond and "H" brands were discovered at the Ada stockyard on January 4, 1977. He stated that the cattle had been billed in at the stockyard by Roy Belvin. Questioning of Belvin revealed that he had purchased the cattle from the appellants. Sheriff Heck testified further that appellant Charles Rhinehart, after being advised of his Miranda rights, admitted that he had stolen the cattle and sold some of them to Roy Belvin in return for a check made payable to Julia Rhinehart. On cross-examination Sheriff Heck stated that during the interrogation of Charles Rhinehart he specifically stated that Julia Rhinehart was not with him when the cattle were stolen. Sheriff Heck concluded his testimony by stating that he had no knowledge of any promises or threats having been made to Charles Rhinehart.
The remaining witnesses for the State testified to facts substantially corroborating the testimony of Sheriff Heck, regarding the statements made by Charles Rhinehart.
Appellant Julia Rhinehart testified that she sold several head of cattle to Roy Belvin in return for a check payable to her, which upon receipt she endorsed and deposited in the bank. She stated that she did not steal any cattle or have any knowledge that four of the cattle sold to Belvin were stolen.
The last witness, Charles Rhinehart, testified that he was currently incarcerated at Stringtown Correctional Center, serving sentences totalling 70 years. He stated that he confessed to Sheriff Heck after being promised a suspended sentence and dismissal of the charges against his wife, Julia Rhinehart.
In the first assignment of error, appellant Charles Rhinehart contends that the trial court committed reversible error by forcing him to stand trial in prison clothing. The record reveals that prior to trial Charles Rhinehart moved through his attorney to be allowed to change from prison garb to civilian clothing. The court denied the motion and immediately thereafter the jury was impanelled and the cause tried.
It is well established that it is error to compel an accused to appear before a jury in prison clothing where a timely request has been made for civilian clothing. See Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 96 S.Ct. 1691, 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976). The consequences of compelling a criminal defendant to appear before a jury in prison clothing are set forth in Watt v. Page, 452 F.2d 1174 (10th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1070, 92 S.Ct. 1520, 31 L.Ed.2d 803 (1972), wherein the court refused to apply a rule requiring...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crawford v. State
...of overwhelming evidence. See Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969); See also Rhinehart v. State, 609 P.2d 781, 783 (Okl.Cr.1980). Although Appellant's objection was not timely, in light of his repeated objections, we do not feel that this lack of time......
-
Johnson v. State
...clothes. Appellant claims that the trial court erred in not discharging the entire jury panel and calling a new one. In Rhinehart v. State, 609 P.2d 781 (Okl.Cr.1980), this Court noted that it is error to compel an accused to appear before a jury in prison clothing where a timely request ha......
-
Ochoa v. State
...before a jury in prison clothing where a timely request has been made for civilian clothing. Rhinehart v. State, 1980 OK CR 16, ¶ 8, 609 P.2d 781, 783. However here, the record shows Ochoa's decision to appear before the jury in jail dress was his own. He was compelled by no one but himself......
-
Taylor v. State, F-81-8
...may be a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 96 S.Ct. 1691, 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976); Rhinehart v. State, 609 P.2d 781 (Okl.1980), defense counsel is not required to provide a proper wardrobe for his client. The appellant did not appear in prison clothing,......